ParkMaven NTK

Netwizard147

Hi All

Posting under another name due to the fact my other usename contains my real name! sorry.

Ive had an NTK from Parkmavern as the RK to say that there is no valid parking session and time in car park was just over 4 hours.

I know from the driver (and from the use of a tracker) that this is incorrect. The driver entered the premises on the time specified, but left 15 mins later (08:45). They then returned to the same car park at lunch time and left at the time stated in the letter but its managed to say that this is one parking event rather than 2 separate parking events.

Ive read the newbies thread but its blagged my head a bit. It seems the NTK has been sent in the correct time scale but the pictures are very unclear, and the ANPR is inaccurate as it hasn't picked up that this is two separate parking events.

Very frustrating, as the driver has actually complied with the parking regs but I can't prove this.

Do the driver have any recourse here? from what I've read, the photos have to be clear (they certainly aren't) and the ANPR is not accurate!



Thank you for any help you can provide.

Car1980

ANPR Double Dip. Very common and not the first time with Parkmaven.

Try "appealing" with what you've told us. 

I'd be interested to see what they come back with.

Netwizard147

Car1980 said:

ANPR Double Dip. Very common and not the first time with Parkmaven.

Try "appealing" with what you've told us. 

I'd be interested to see what they come back with.

I did think this but it's my word against there's so surely they would just reject my appeal.

I do have a tracking app which does show the driver being there parking there for 15 mins in the morning and then the same again at lunch, but again, how much weight does this hold.

I usually get these tickets on the fact they are sent outside of the 14 day period so the RK can not be held liable but this isn't the case with this ticket.

Many thanks 

Le_Kirk

When you appeal/complain, you need them to check for "orphan images" as they are required to do by their own code of practice.

Netwizard147

Le_Kirk said:

When you appeal/complain, you need them to check for "orphan images" as they are required to do by their own code of practice.

Thanks

I assume orphan images are those that are captured but not necessarily recognised as a number plate?

1505grandad

As per the unregulated soon to be replaced ppss CoP:-

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/Sector Code Templates/sectorsingleCodeofPracticeVersion1.1130225.pdf

7.3. Use of photographic evidence

d) images generated by ANPR or CCTV have been subject to a manual quality control check, including the accuracy of the timestamp and the risk of keying errors.

 NOTE 1: The manual quality control check for remote ANPR and CCTV systems is particularly important for detecting issues such as “double dipping”, where image camera systems might have failed to accurately record each instance when a vehicle enters and leaves controlled land, and for checking images that might have been taken other than by a trained parking attendant (see Clause 15).

Coupon-mad

Netwizard147 said:

Le_Kirk said:

When you appeal/complain, you need them to check for "orphan images" as they are required to do by their own code of practice.

Thanks

I assume orphan images are those that are captured but not necessarily recognised as a number plate?

No.

They are just the other (perfectly clear) images in the middle of the 'first in last out' images that the ANPR system is SET to default to.

The orphan images are there all along but weren't seen by any human because the industry does can't be bothered to do human checks of AI camera data.

Obviously just appeal showing the tracker evidence. Use the usual appeal you'll find when you search the forum for

Double dip orphan images appeal